About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
immigration system it cannot be what it is destined to be. >> a few days after the election when the republicans looked at the figures from the president how mitt romney had done with hispanic voters, there was like a 44-point gap. they said we need to do something aggressive on immigration. but it wasn't a couple weeks. republicans couldn't agree on what needs to be done, the fervor seemed to have already cooled. how do you get your own party on the same page, let alone bring on democrats? >> i disagree. i don't think that's what is happening. what is happening, the concept of immigration reform, there is a lot of consensus. the details of immigration reform need to be examined. i'll give you an example. we have millions of people waiting to come here legally and they come to my office and say we have done it the right way, waited, paid the fees, but you are telling me if i came here illegally it would have been faster? it didn't seem right. that is the kind of debate we are going to have. on the ag worker-guest worker, there are labor unions that are not in favor of a guest wor
%. mr. verrastro, we have heard a lot in this election about the war on coal. from these numbers we're seeing in the data, is the coal industry in serious trouble? guest: because of the low cost and availability of natural gas, gas has displaced a lot of coal use. adam is right. unless we move out these coal plants or retire them early, they will still be in operation. coal usage in the country has gone down. it has been good for the environment. host: those in eastern and central u.s. can give us a call at 202-585-380. those in the pacific, 202-585- 381. -- 3881. teresa, yoyou are on with mr. sieminski and mr. verrastro. caller: i want to know the corporations that are involved in this. host: involved in what exactly? caller: with the u.s. becoming energy independent. talk about how you pute this report together, mr. sieminski. guest: it is to look at the fuel production, not by company. on the eia website, www.eia.gov, you can get a lot of information on the companies that are importing oil, producing oil, natural gas, grenoble's. there's a lot of information there on the company
on the egyptian elections. >> good morning everyone. thank you, bob, for that introduction and thank you all of you for coming out early this morning for what i think will be a lively debate. we are going to be asking the question if democracy is to triumph in the middle east, victories at the ballot box are inavoidable and essential. this is the motion we will be debating in the intelligence-squared format per requests from our panelists who have done this once already -- they have had a practice round. they have not had a chance of doing this, but i suspect, had probably had several scotches and talked about ways to defeat their foes. we know that this is a time of revolution in the middle east. it started with a fruit sell seller in tunisia and toppled a 230-year dictator that spread to egypt and the egyptian revolution was concern to the united states. egypt has long held incredible importance to u.s. policy in the middle east. the u.s. reaction to that revolution was unclear. there were some that said this was a good thing that this would only lead to democracy. there were others who in
is relentlessly negative, but it comes at an interesting moment both for iran, which has apartmently elections next june, typically during periods of time when there is that democratic process. there's even greater and international scrutiny on iran's human rights record. trying to prevent the iranian nuclear program from arriving at the point where they're actually able to produce a weapon, and how you tie an antiproliferation policy with a human rights policy is an issue that is often been difficult for policymakers to reconcile. so, why don't i quickly just open it up. maybe i'll start with marina, since your experience at this is so personal, and maybe ask you just on a very basic level whether you think life for ordinary iranians has gotten better or worse? the last few years, and just give us a kind of -- your best sense of what the human rights landscape looks like today versus, say, five years ago or a decade ago. >> well, i guess this all depends on how much people know here about how bad, the absolute disregard for human rights iran is in general. i don't know how much you know actua
. they re-elected the president. the president ran on an agenda of giving a tax break to 98% of the american people, and that opportunity is before us. the senate has worked their will. it's now our opportunity to do that before the holiday season is over. the expression time is fleeting has never been more apropos than it is today. we have very few working days left in this 112th congress to actually act upon what the american people want us to do, and we have even fewer days now that the house republican leadership has reduced the working days this week. we can still get this done, but it's going to take an effort to work, as i said before, as the american people want us to do in a bipartisan way to move forward. and i know that we have the opportunity to really accept the agenda straight today, and with that i'll turn it back to the chair, mr. larson. >> well, thank you, joe, and without further ado let me introduce the individual that's spear heading this effort from the great state of minnesota, tim walz, affectionately known in our caucus as a sergeant major and he's got a sergeant maj
to work on bipartisan reform efforts with senator-elect jeff flake and my friend, paul ryan. and there are real opportunities in health care. now, i hope my republican friends will stop the charade we went through this last year and a half of repealing obamacare some 37 times. that train has left the station. the president was re-elected. it's not going to be repealed. the supreme court has decided it's constitutional. and most of the major health care players are busy at work implementing health care reform. but we have barely scratched the surface of the ability to squeeze more value out of the health care system. the united states does not have to spend nearly twice as much as all the other developed countries and actually have health care results that on average are worse than our european friends and japanese. we have the best health care for some americans but too many are denied health care and for many others are paying too much for results that aren't good enough. we know what to do. embedded in the health care reform act are elements of reform that used to have bip
credit this body with being a driving force in that because we were elected by the american people who want to see their fiscal bucks put back in order, but we succeeded on the discretionary side. discretionary turns out to be the easier nut to crack because that money doesn't go out the door unless this u.s. house of representatives acts. that distinguishes it, mr. speaker, from mandatory spending. that's the third set of columns on my chart. mandatory spending, as i said, 2/3 of our budget, 68.3% to be precise, and of all the sequestration cuts, 63.8% of the budget is only going to bear 14.4% of the pain. the back story there, mr. speaker, is that's the only 14.4% of the pain. as i said discretionary spending has been on the chopping block in 2011, 2012, and now again in 2013. but mandatory spending we haven't had a single agreement about, and i don't hear the white house talking about it, either. the white house put together a group it was called the simpson-bowles commission. it was named afterers kin bowles, a former clinton chief of staff, and alan simpson, former republican sena
election. it would be nicer to get rid of it altogether. it is anachronistic law that is a problem. it creates a great deal of uncertainty. as you can see, it can do a lot of damage to the economy. there are a lot of reasons why it is being considered to eliminate that ceiling. it should be carefully considered. at the very minimum, we should push this to the other side of the election. we do not want to address the debt ceiling on a regular basis. it is damaging confidence. on fiscal sustainability, we need deficit reduction in the next 10 years of about $3 trillion. to get there, a balanced approach would be $1.4 trillion in tax revenue. half of that would come through tax reform and the other half through higher tax rates. $1.2 trillion in cuts to programs -- medicare and medicaid, social security, and other budget items -- that would leave you with approximately $400 billion in interest savings. at all of that together and you get $3 trillion. the spending cuts were implemented as part of the budget control act. if you add all of it up, if you go down the path i articulated, th
do well. having said that, welcome again, mr. secretary. just days after the president's re-election, the f.h.a. released its 2012 actuarial report which revealed that the economic value of the f.h.a. fund has fallen to negative $16 billion. a lot of money. that means the fund's capital reserve ratio, as i understand it, now stands at a negative 1.44%. this news is obviously very disturbing to us and to the secretary. for those of us who have long been concerned about the health of the f.h.a. for years the problems of the federal housing administration have been well-known. during the housing boom, the f.h.a. unweissly, i thought, guaranteed -- unwisely, i thought, guaranteed millions of risky mortgages with low down payments to borrowers with poor credit scores. we are reaping that now. these mortgages have resulted in billions of losses to the f.h.a. the federal housing administration has made matters worse, i think, by failing to come to grips with the magnitude, mr. secretary, of the problems. back in 2007, as the federal housing administration's poor financial position was becom
-- and i think a lot of republicans -- remember, we had three elected republicans who were on the commission. we got 11 republicans. we had a 14-vote threshold. we got bipartisan support, and there were three republican elected officials who voted for it. others were not elected. there is a growing number he thinks he can do this, and that is why a lot of republicans have moved toward the simpson-bowles type of tax reform plan when you are lowering rates, but be able to raise revenues by broadening we will see how things move forward. host: here is the headline. there remain pessimistic about a deal that dated back on the 28. forward. here is a piece speaking in washington. [video clip] >> i think you will see economic growth slowed by as much as 3% to 5%. it will throw another 2 million people out of work. unemployment will go to 9%. i think it is about a third that will go over the cliff. people will go there very quickly for lots of different reasons. you will see the numbers in the fourth quarter. i think the real problem is if we do not get a deal right away. that will
the economy or rurt the recovery, but it's largely driven by fear. no elected official likes to go back and talk to people about having raised their taxes. you can see that in things like the way the middle class is always exempted from everything on both sides of the aisle which has nothing to do with policy it's just got to do with a big group of constituents, you want to tell them you're going to be ok. all this conversation, i've been sitting here listen, i'm not a tax policy expert, is very abstract. this is a bunch of sort of guys in ties and one laity sitting around talking about these policy issues and if you stopped somebody in the aisle of a wal-mart and wanted to talk to them about taxes, there's nothing that's been said here which is the least bit persuasive to them. when i was mayor, raised property taxes twice, as governor raised taxes in one particular area when i was there in a very conservative state. the way i got it done was always to tie it very specifically to something that they could make a judgment, that they could make a judgment about. as mayor. i want to build
in america's highest elected office after they leave office. in 1958 congress first authorized secret service protection for former presidents, which was limited to a reasonable period of time after a president leaves office. congress expanded this to lifetime protection in 1965. but in 1994, congress once again limited secret service protection for former presidents. this time to 10 years after a president leaves office. this 10-year restriction applied to presidents who took office after january 1, 1997. the role of the former president has changed throughout the years. former presidents now have a global presence and are often seen as de facto representatives of the united states. whether it's former president carter's work in peace negotiations with other countries or president clinton's global initiative, former presidents have a valuable role in using their experience and knowledge to help the u.s. in both a public and private capacity. the world has changed dramatically since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the threats to american personnel and interests continue as terrorists raged a war
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)